The Great Climate Change Debate- Continued

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

i have stated it before, and i will state again, this is probably just a blip to the system with a strong la nina, as many people have stated before, if next year has a negative NAO then im sure a milder blip is not too far away.

the question is, will these strong la ninas that we are currently experiencing get stronger in the future. if so, then these cold winters will become more common, and of course, the cold winters will not be so evident in the uk. however, if el ninos gather strength, which is more unlikely, then global temperatures will be higher, and people will start to worry about AGW once more. for us to determine what the temperature around the world is likely to be come 20 years, we need to know the effects of CO2 on the stratospheric system, pressure systems, the NAO and el/la nino/a.

I'll post this one more time. Since Feb 2007 we entered perturbation cycle whereby La nina wil be the dominant force as compared to El Nino. This will last approx 35yrs and this is coinciding with as Capt B puts it an unusual minima [we head to Gleisberg minima of Dalton poss Maunder proportions]. Cycle 25 will be even more unusual than the next one 24 and coupled together we will IMO and Astrophysicists experience damaging Global cooling of possibly 2.5c.

BFTP

[biffvernon]

Are you with Dick Cheney?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/27/...in3974389.shtml

[Methuselah]

Hello peeps.

Some things, it seems, never change...I thought I'd have a look at the thread to see how points are made...

IMO, there are two camps: the more erudite among us who post reasoned opinion with relevant backup data - Devonian, Roo, Yeti, TWS et al. and the nameless ones who always argue with the Argument from Incredulity: if I do not know or understand your point, how can it possibly be correct?

There are many things that we do not know, far far more than we ever can know...That said, I still fail to see how my ignorance of specific things can win me many arguments. IMO, the scientific consenus on AGW is quite clear: the climate's warming and we are partly to blame for it.

[SnowBear]

Sorry Pete, but that smacks of "oh, we are above you, we follow the consensus, we are right, always right, we are the learned ones and can be the only ones who are right" Science has been known to be wrong before, many times, many u-turns and overturns of theories through time. Science is not the alpha and omega. Sometimes the little voice turns out to be the right one.

And just because you cannot understand, know or agree with another's point doesn't mean to say it is wrong, maybe it is right but no-one quite understands fully why and it appears bizarre because science at this moment in time is not advanced enough to come to that understanding.

The climate is warming, or was? maybe? who really knows what it is going to do next. Are we truly to blame? I believe we maybe partly to blame if there is continued warming, by how much? I don't know. The results are not in and not for many years yet. Like I said before many seem to think the show is over, that all is done and dusted. We are dealing with something here which I akin to the theory of everything...its complex, its cycles within cycles within cycles, its fluid mechanics, astrophysics, meteorology, oceanography, and on and on. Any one field or group of fields misses something very important from another field, and although it appears small, it could make a lot of difference to the end result.

Edited March 29, 2008 by SnowBear

[Methuselah]

You are right SB, my tone was a tad clumsy (sorry!)...But I wasn't attacking either side in particular, just a certain type of argument. So you have made my point better than I have... Thank you.

PS: In case of any possible misunderstanding, I am in no way being sarcastic.

Edited March 29, 2008 by Pete Tattum

[biffvernon]

All very well but there's no point suggesting that informed opinion is divided. Climate scientists have known about AGW since at least the early 1970s and more recently scientists who are not climate specialists but can understand the language have also understood the phenomenon. Some of our politicians are beginning to realize our plight but the denialists and contrarians would be a real danger to the survival of the species if their crazy ideas hold sway.

[Hiya]

Are there any pro-AGW people on here with physical science degrees?

[Roo]

Are there any pro-AGW people on here with physical science degrees?

Not me! Archaeology (BA hons) 2:1 and PhD, but physicist partner with PhD over 10 years active research and publication and who has read almost all the published papers and come to the conclusion that AGW is very real. We've also got quite a few friends who are research chemists, biochemists, environmental scientists, geologists, etc.

I am not pro-AGW, I am just for not rubbishing good solid research which, as a huge body of work, comes to the same main conclusions. If that research said anti-AGW, I'd go with that, as I am not in a position to be able to say they are wrong.

I also respect the opinions of the people I know in the relevant fields and, as they can understand the science involved and can see no flaws in the research thus far, again can see no reason to challenge the current consensus.

Edited April 4, 2008 by Roo

[biffvernon]

Are there any pro-AGW people on here with physical science degrees?

Geology

[noggin]

Not having a scientific qualification does not necessarily render the layman's conclusions wrong. The "man on the street" can often see things well before those who "should" know better........politics, for example, is littered with such occurences.

I know some academics who, whilst highly qualified in their speciality, don't seem to have an ounce of common sense.

[Yeti]

Not having a scientific qualification does not necessarily render the layman's conclusions wrong. The "man on the street" can often see things well before those who "should" know better........politics, for example, is littered with such occurences.

I know some academics who, whilst highly qualified in their speciality, don't seem to have an ounce of common sense.

But the academics do know a lot, lot more than the lay people and we must accept that they are always going to be at a huge advantage in a topic like this than us. And anyway, common sense doesn't really come into it, this is about Mr Bacon and his scientific method!

[NorthernRab]

Are there any pro-AGW people on here with physical science degrees?

Studying law and italian, totally different ball game altogether :/

Does anyone have a link to a source which lists different economically developed countries and their commitments towards reducing emissions and the like?

[SilverWolf]

But the academics do know a lot, lot more than the lay people and we must accept that they are always going to be at a huge advantage in a topic like this than us. And anyway, common sense doesn't really come into it, this is about Mr Bacon and his scientific method!

I mostly agree with this statement, however I'd like to give an alternative view. A relative of mine has a PHD in engineering, and will take 30 mins to hang a picture 'correctly'. I take 5 with only GCSE's. The pictures in his house are always wonky, mine aren't!! Sure the expert will have more knowledge, more info, and MOSTLY better results and conclusions, however in a very chaotic world of weather and climate the layman may be right with his 'opinion' or 'feeling', rather than his common sense, for perhaps one of two reasons. First by chance - anyone could be right if the outcome is a bit unclear! And secondly he may not be blinded, guided or overly focused by numbers, charts, statistics and equations. His feeling may be right simple by being outside a lot, experiencing the climate! A non-scientific view, and not one I completely hang on to as I trust a lot in the world of science - just offering another possibility. Sometimes science really is yesterday's magic. A spark of 'intuition' from a non-scientific mind can change everything, I really trust in that too.

Anyway its going to snow on Sunday. Lets hope we have a hot one after!

[NorthernRab]

I always find climate change a pretty odd little area of science; the amount of solid knowledge an expert of climate change has would be considered merely a novice in any other field!

Edited April 4, 2008 by NorthernRab

[jethro]

One of the most balanced views on all this that I've read in long time:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/files/aitkin.pdf

http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/news/opin...ng/1215521.html

[Devonian]

One of the most balanced views on all this that I've read in long time:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/files/aitkin.pdf

http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/news/opin...ng/1215521.html

Yes, it's, in the main, moderate AGW skepticism. He accepts that CO₂ is increasing and that it's due to our activities, accepts glaciers are melting, accepts temperatures are rising - if everyone here did that it would be progress :lol:

He does makes some glaring errors (but, fair play, he isn't a scientist). He says "The principal greenhouse gases (about 98 per cent) are water vapour and clouds" - clouds are not ghgs neither are the two 98% of the GH effect. Likewise he confuses weather and climate "Common sense tells us that if our current knowledge of climate and weather cannot provide forecasts with much accuracy past 24 hours..." weather forecasting is NOT the same as climate forecasting - climate forecasts are averages. That I can't forecast my nephews adult height does not mean I can't predict average male height in the future.

And, of course..., he makes predictable swipes at people like me saying (offensively frankly) "It seems to me that ‘environmentalism’, broadly defined, has elements of a quasi-religious movement (with ‘Gaia’, the spirit of the earth, as the goddess), and the religious are rarely interested in argument or evidence." It's codswallop, and if I said that of people like you uncertain about AGW you would be most put out!

Edited April 9, 2008 by Devonian

[jethro]

But in fairness Dev, folk like me have to put up with "flat earthers", being akin to holocaust deniers etc. Needless from BOTH sides of the debate IMO, sadly the core of the debate gets all too often lost, once comments like those are made.

Average adult male height; mmmm, well hubby's 6ft 2", best mate's 5ft 6", I guess the range is something like 5ft 2" - 6ft 6" ish; that's a hell of a range, wouldn't like to predict anything on that basis. Weather and climate are linked, one is the average of another over a given period of time, trouble is which particular period of time is chosen dramatically influences the outcome. Selecting which period seems to vary greatly, even from the official bodies. We're used to the "30 year average" being used but even that doesn't seem to be a universal measure. The IPCC have used 5 year periods as an illustration of a period of rising temps in one of their reports, yet when a sceptic uses a 5 year period to illustrate one of their points, it is dismissed as being irrelevant; too short a time span.

On the subject of clouds; it's reassuring that NASA and the Aqua satellite have confirmed the empirical observations made by Roy Spencer last year. Be interesting to see what the models come up with for the future, once that new, improved data is fed into the system.

[Thundery wintry showers]

Not having a scientific qualification does not necessarily render the layman's conclusions wrong. The "man on the street" can often see things well before those who "should" know better........politics, for example, is littered with such occurences.

I know some academics who, whilst highly qualified in their speciality, don't seem to have an ounce of common sense.

Yes, there is some truth in that.

However, for me to consider there to be much behind a "man on the street"'s argument, the argument has to be backed up by some evidence. For instance, "AGW may not be as big a factor as the scientists think because of feedback X or issue X" could well be a good argument, but "I don't believe AGW is real because I don't believe AGW is real, you have to let me have my opinion, and therefore I'm right" is not an argument that I'd readily accept. We see too many arguments that are more along the lines of the latter than the former.

I do think certain extreme branches of environmentalism is like a religious movement, some groups I've come across preach like staunch evangelists preach the Bible, only with Jesus substituted with environmentalists, and Satan substituted with motorists. Haven't come across a single person like that in the UEA Climatic Research Unit though, which supports my view that this "eco-religion" thing is associated mainly with campaign groups rather than the climate scientists and should not be associated with environmentalism as a whole.

[Climate Man]

I have a degree in Geography but specialised in atmospheric science and climate. I have also studied climate as a hobby since the age of 10 - 31 years ago. I am a skeptic, not a denier, but after those 31 years am still of the belief that we do not have the ability to model the complexity of our environment.

[stormchaser1]

Morning everyone

Not sure if this is the right place to post this but here goes

Regarding Global warming or Global Cooling ???? Global warming is happening its a fact , However if thats the case why Has the North East seen a cooling trend since 1997, Facts and figures below

1997= 8.89c

1998= 8.93c

1999= 8.60c

2000= no data for march and april

2001= 8.06c

2002= 9.10c

2003= 8.85c

2004= 8.83c

2005= 8.45c

2006= 8.89c

2007= 8.71c

As you can see since 2002 the North East has cooled by some 0.39c [ not a huge differance i know but the trend is there. since 1997 the North East has cooled by just 0.18c ,

I know some places have seen a rise in temperature and others a drop in temrperature,

Has you can see 2002 was our warmest year however 2001 was the coldest year over this 11 year period < 2001 being a La Nina year.

I apologise if this is inappropriate information regarding Global warming , but i jsut wanted to point out these figures , and say that all places havent warmed, Ive always been against Global Warming and always will be { my views and opinion}

Again i apologise if this information is irrelavant

Nigel

Edited April 9, 2008 by stormchaser1

[Thundery wintry showers]

I don't know if your readings have or haven't been inadvertantly biased by instrument changes and/or location changes, because the stats don't match up with my own:

http://tws27.50webs.com/Weather/index.html

or the more reliable data from the Met Office site at Durham:

http://www.geography.dur.ac.uk/projects/we...66/Default.aspx

It's easy for even the slightest change in instrument positioning to affect the records. For instance, when I compared the readings I get from my Stevenson screen with readings I got from equipment for my earlier records, and readings from nearby stations, there were often strong anomalies, particularly on warm sunny days in summer. Thus, I calibrated the earlier readings accordingly to try and make my records as homogeneous as possible. Even these days, I calibrate the screened readings downwards by up to 2C on warm sunny days in summer, to account for the sun-trap effect in my back garden.

I included a link to the Durham site's readings, as those are Met Office quality-controlled and therefore less prone to such issues.

The underlying trend in the North East still seems to be upwards, with 2006 and 2007 being the warmest years, and also an appreciable decline in winter snowfall and snow cover.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Yes, it's, in the main, moderate AGW skepticism. He accepts that CO₂ is increasing and that it's due to our activities, accepts glaciers are melting, accepts temperatures are rising - if everyone here did that it would be progress

Dev

That is accepted by most I believe. The only difference is causation/reason of the warming...nowt else. The only other bit I'd add is that CO2 is increasing partly because of our activities...not solely. We have been coming out of an iceage for some time....of course we have been warming and of course some glaciers have been melting. It's all about why

BFTP

Edited April 9, 2008 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[jethro]

Just received this info, thought some may find it interesting/useful. Fascinating stuff (from my geeky point of view) breaks down how weather has changed over the years covering everything from temps, humidity, frosts etc, displayed as countrywide map with area breakdowns.

http://www.ukcip.org.uk/index.php?option=c...&Itemid=477

http://www.ukcip.org.uk/

Also, but on a pay to download basis, this promises to translate today's weather forecast into future projections, taking climate change scenarios into the equation.

http://www.ukcip.org.uk/index.php?option=c...mp;id=485&I

[Michael Ronayne]

On Friday March 4, 2008 the BBC published a story on Global Warming which it subsequently redacted later that same day. Fortunately the all of the major Internet search engines caches copies of the original story, which many Internet users have now downloaded and archived. I generated a small animation using Blink Comparator technology, showing the text which was changed in the story. The animation report on the BBC story alteration is available here.

BBC before and after

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/04/09/bbc-before-and-after/

To stop the animation press the "Esc" key; to restart it press the "F5" key.

The original story which the Ministry Of Truth doesn't want you to see is still available via Yahoo Cache but make a copy quickly before it times out like copies in Google and Live.

Global warming 'dips this year'

http://216.109.125.130/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=%22Global+warming+%27dips+this+year%27%22&fr=ush-news&u=reddit.com/goto%3Frss%3Dtrue%26id%3Dt3_6ellk&w=%22global+warming+dips+this+year%22&d=Nxe2VvH_QkkL&icp=1&.intl=us

At the Ministry Of Truth you can read today's official reality.

Global temperatures 'to decrease'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7329799.stm

Please verify the accuracy of the animation by comparing it with the two versions the story referenced above. Only the first section of the BBC story was altered. Take special note of the fact that the date/time stamps on both versions for the story are identical and are highlighted in red in the animation. The same date/time stamps were used in both versions in an amateurish attempt to cover up the fact that the story was altered.

The individual taking full credit for forcing BBC to change the story is Jo Abbess. Apparently for Jo Abbess even the Ministry Of Truth is not truthful enough. You can read her victory statement and full Email journal here.

BBC : Balance Restored

http://portal.campaigncc.org/node/2089

There is an excellent report in The Register.

Blog bully crows over BBC climate victory

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/08/bbc_blog_bully/

In the Email exchange between Jo Abbess and Roger Harrabin, Roger helpfully documents the fact the date/time stamp is a forgery.

UPDATED VERSION (note : the page date and time has not changed)

For those of you in the United Kingdom, who are paying the BBC to practice this band of journalism, ask the BBC two very simple questions?

1. Why is the date/time stamp on the altered version of the story a forgery?
   
2. How many other stories published by the BBC have forged date/time stamps?
   

Mike

[Michael Ronayne]

March 4, 2008

That should be April 4, 2008 not March 4, 2008; apparently I don’t have edit authority or more likely don’t understand your system.

As I can edit this document please attribute the error to the user.

Mike

Edited April 10, 2008 by Michael Ronayne